Draft Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) of the Spatial Options Document
Search representations
Results for Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd search
New searchComment
Draft Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) of the Spatial Options Document
Draft Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) of the Spatial Options Document
Representation ID: 40815
Received: 22/09/2021
Respondent: Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
At Table 1.1 of the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), the assessment framework is set out. This explains that the objectives of the population and communities theme are
1) to cater for existing and future residents’ needs as well as the needs of different groups in the community; and 2) maintain and enhance community and settlement identity.
In respective of objective 1, Table 1.1 explains that assessment questions relate to the following:
Meet the identified objectively assessed housing needs, including affordable, for the plan area?
Ensure an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of all sectors of the community?
Improve cross-boundary links between communities?
Provide housing in sustainable locations that allow easy access to a range of local services and facilities?
Promote the development of a range of high quality, accessible community facilities, including specialist services for disabled and older people?
We support the above decision-aiding question, but suggest that, in addition to meeting the District’s housing needs (including affordable housing), the Local Plan should seek to improve the affordability of housing for local residents.
The median house price in the District is 11.57 times the median gross annual workplacebased earnings (‘the affordability ratio’). The affordability of housing has worsened significantly in recent years – and to a much greater extent than the national average. In 2000, the affordability ratio for the District was 5.08 – only slightly worse than the national average of 4.13. By 2020, the national affordability ratio had increased to 7.69 –
significantly below the District’s 11.57.